Oh yeah, I had a couple guys like that. They would usually play retainers,
usually muscle though one guy like playing slicer/hacker, to an NPC noble
(avoiding issues of one player lording it over another).
- Sent from my SM-N900T
On Mar 24, 2014 7:02 PM, <> wrote:
>
>
> Uxi,
> Having them be "movers and shakers" wasn't the goal, but i want it to be a
> viable option if the group wants to try that sort of campaign.
>
> Two of my players could not play Third Imperium nobles if i put a loaded
> Gauss autocannon to their heads and tried to force them ;)
>
> Also, i had the impression that it was the rare Noble that had ANY sort of
> influence outside her domain, and that the 3I was pretty much as static as
> imperial China during any dynasty.
>
> That insistence on *some* players and certain editions of Traveller that
> the period from 1100-1110 was the ONLY time to play a campaign was really
> off putting to me. It was/is like part of the player base was stuck in a
> time-loop.
>
>
usually muscle though one guy like playing slicer/hacker, to an NPC noble
(avoiding issues of one player lording it over another).
- Sent from my SM-N900T
On Mar 24, 2014 7:02 PM, <> wrote:
>
>
> Uxi,
> Having them be "movers and shakers" wasn't the goal, but i want it to be a
> viable option if the group wants to try that sort of campaign.
>
> Two of my players could not play Third Imperium nobles if i put a loaded
> Gauss autocannon to their heads and tried to force them ;)
>
> Also, i had the impression that it was the rare Noble that had ANY sort of
> influence outside her domain, and that the 3I was pretty much as static as
> imperial China during any dynasty.
>
> That insistence on *some* players and certain editions of Traveller that
> the period from 1100-1110 was the ONLY time to play a campaign was really
> off putting to me. It was/is like part of the player base was stuck in a
> time-loop.
>
>